Computer Mediated Communication and Telecollaboration for Language Learning: Issues of Technology - IT Enabled Services - page 129

Conversely, Deardorff's ( 2006 ) study, based on interviews with a group of
educational administrators and a group of ICC 'experts', found that although
specific ICC objectives were favored by the administrators, the experts leant toward
a more generalist set of benchmarks. Nevertheless, the experts in Deardorff's study
were able to reach a consensus on certain attributes that could define ICC; attributes
that focused on cognitive and interactional dispositions. They could not reach
consensus on what role language had to play in the acquisition or performance of
ICC however, although it was recognized as being critical (my own italics).
Regardless, what was significant in terms of cross study reliability is that Deardorff
reached similar conclusions in comparison to a study by Fantini ( 2006 ) in which
Fantini noted that “a complex of abilities [is] needed to perform effectively and
appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally
different from oneself ”.

8.5.6 Assessment Literacy

Although, at first, assessment appears to have been largely overlooked in CMC and
language acquisition literature, it seems to be moving to the forefront of the debate
on how to best evaluate telecollaborative practices. Lamy and Hampel ( 2007 ) cast
this oversight in terms of development. The focus appears to have been, until
recently, mostly on task design, media type, and philosophical frameworks:
understandable, considering the relative novelty of the technology being

incorporated.
However, Levy and Stockwell ( 2006 ) point out educators have failed to incor-
porate assessment methodologies that reflect the changing nature of course design.
They claim that many educators are still using exams and tests at the completion of
courses focused on telecollaborative designs. If blended learning is to be an integral
part of language teaching, then it follows that assessment practices need to accu-
rately reflect this pedagogical shift. Conceivably, there may be negative
ramifications for course designers in which the learners themselves would start to
question the legitimacy of assessment. O'Dowd ( 2010 ) highlights this issue in a
timely article, where he states;
If educators believe that foreign language education in our modern 'globalized'
society should involve the ability to learn, work and communicate in online
contexts with members of other cultures, then it is to be expected that assessment
procedures and criteria should take this new learning context into account (p. 338).
As O'Dowd goes on to point out, there are a range of complex issues connected to
assessing the skills and competencies of language learners in a CMC-related course.
Issues such as; Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC), multimodalities
and multiliteracies (Lamy and Hampel 2007 ), as well as interpretive skills and
dialogue sensitivity (Schneider and von der Emde 2006 ).
Assessing these issues is problematic. Although O'Dowd ( 2010 ) makes some
effort to describe current attitudes to, and methods for, assessing CMC courses, he